tkr4lf wrote:Also, I never got much feedback about the placement of the impassables.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Do they look ok where they are?

I know that's more of a gameplay discussion, but I'd like to have them relatively set before the draft is finished.

Placement currently creates a lot of bottlenecks (that is if the Black Sea doesn't come into play a lot). Additionally, it looks like most of the bonus zones have similar number of borders, around 2-3 (again, that is if the Black Sea doesn't come into play a lot).

With the impassables, do three things. Remove all of the ones you have now. Look at a real map and see if it can be copied. Lastly, think of it as a player. One of the things I did for Rorke's Drift was look at my favourite map (World 2.1) and see how that is laid out. A lot of territs you go on to have multiple attacks, only one bottleneck but it also makes players choose there route. "Which way to go?" can create many options for attacks. That is the best advice. Would you like to play on this map with this many impassables on it?

tkr4lf wrote:Also, I never got much feedback about the placement of the impassables.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Do they look ok where they are?

I know that's more of a gameplay discussion, but I'd like to have them relatively set before the draft is finished.

Placement currently creates a lot of bottlenecks (that is if the Black Sea doesn't come into play a lot). Additionally, it looks like most of the bonus zones have similar number of borders, around 2-3 (again, that is if the Black Sea doesn't come into play a lot).

--Andy

True, I guess it does depend on the if the black sea is used or not. Speaking of which, I was thinking keeping the killer neutral a low number to encourage its use, somewhere around 2-4, thoughts on that?

When counting how many borders each area had, I counted all the territories lining the black sea as well, since they can technically be attacked, assuming one goes through the black sea first. With that in mind, border territory counts are as follows:

So I guess my reasoning for creating so many bottlenecks was to make it easier to hold the bonus areas, since without these particular impassables, there would be many more border territories to defend. Of course, they can be moved around to achieve the same effect, without causing so many bottlenecks, if that is so desired.

koontz1973 wrote:With the impassables, do three things. Remove all of the ones you have now. Look at a real map and see if it can be copied. Lastly, think of it as a player. One of the things I did for Rorke's Drift was look at my favourite map (World 2.1) and see how that is laid out. A lot of territs you go on to have multiple attacks, only one bottleneck but it also makes players choose there route. "Which way to go?" can create many options for attacks. That is the best advice. Would you like to play on this map with this many impassables on it?

As a player, yes and no. No because I do see how there are too many bottlenecks and how that can lead to stale gameplay, but yes because the way they are structured makes the bonus areas much easier to actually obtain and hold than without them. But as I said above, I can move them around to make it less bottleneck-y and more open, but still make the zones easier to hold, not to mention keeping the bonus troops down to a reasonable level (some of them are still pretty high, but try running the numbers through the bonus calculator spreadsheet without the impassables...you end up with some of them netting +12 troops or some other crazy high number).

But I see where you are coming from, so when I start working on this again, I will see what I can do about the impassables. I can look at a real map and see what I can copy, what makes sense where, etc. But, I guess the main thing to keep in mind is, openness of gameplay?

One more question: Do you guys think there should be another connection for Republic of Cyprus? As it is, there is only one territory that can attack it, and it leads to only one place, Southwestern Turkey. I could add in a sea route to the Greek Isles or to (what is falsely labelled as) Crete. Or does it seem ok as is?

tkr4lf wrote:One more question: Do you guys think there should be another connection for Republic of Cyprus? As it is, there is only one territory that can attack it, and it leads to only one place, Southwestern Turkey. I could add in a sea route to the Greek Isles or to (what is falsely labelled as) Crete. Or does it seem ok as is?

I think some dead ends are alright, but I'll defer to those who dig into gameplay more.

Wow...I'm a freaking idiot. Somehow I deleted my .xcf files off of my computer. I went to work on my next update and could not find them. I checked my recycling box, and they're not in there either. All I have now are the PNG's that are uploaded onto imageshack and photobucket.

I guess I get to start over from scratch now... I seriously do not remember ever deleting them, nor do I see a reason that I would have. This seriously pisses me off...that's a lot of work just down the drain. I guess I can use the PNG's as a guide, but still, that's a lot of work to do over.

I guess I'll post it here once I get it done, or I may just do it in versions like I did originally. I'm apparently a dumbass...

So, since somehow all of my .xcf files were deleted off of my laptop, I had to start over from scratch. I had my .png from imageshack to copy off of, so it looks pretty similar, mainly just the colors that are different as I couldn't seem to get the same colors this time. There is still a lot to do just to have it back to where it was before my files got deleted. I mainly just posted it here in this condition to show that I am indeed working on this again.

To do:Territory namesSea RoutesImpassablesMini MapFill out the legendFind a better map border than the black lineAdd the cities back in (probably)Probably some more stuff I can't think of right now

Feedback/Discussion wanted:Does this one look ok so far? Are the colors acceptable? I really liked the previous version better, but not much I can do about it. I can keep tweaking the colors, but they're pretty close to how they were. As long as people don't hate them, then I'll probably leave them be.

I'm going to abandon the victory condition idea. I don't think it really added much to the gameplay. Will anybody really miss it?

I am probably going to keep the cities. They will just function as either autodeploys or a +1 per 1 or 2. Is this something you guys would like to see? Or would you rather just see them scrapped and have this a straight up geographic map?

Instead of having the Black Sea be a killer neutral that assaults and is assaulted by every land region it touches, I think I'm going to have a killer neutral terit on the sea, and have 1 or 2 terits from each bonus region around it connect to it via sea routes. Does this sound like a better route to go, or did you like it better before?

That should be good for now.

Last edited by tkr4lf on Sun Jul 01, 2012 8:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

not sure if you based your region borders on anything but for romania they don't look anything like the reality.

also try this tool and maybe you're lucky enough to recover your map files.i've used it several times and if the deletion didn't happen too long ago you have a very good shot at recovering it, especially if you didn't do a lot of rewriting on that particular partition.

“In the beginning God said, the four-dimensional divergence of an antisymmetric, second rank tensor equals zero, and there was light, and it was good. And on the seventh day he rested.”- Michio Kaku

DiM wrote:not sure if you based your region borders on anything but for romania they don't look anything like the reality.

Yeah, few of the region borders are based on reality. From the maps I could find of the administrative districts of each country, there are way too many and they're mostly too small to make a region on a map of this scale. I pretty much just made up my own and gave them a name from one of the districts that are close to that area.

Have any better ideas for how to do it for me?

DiM wrote:also try this tool and maybe you're lucky enough to recover your map files.i've used it several times and if the deletion didn't happen too long ago you have a very good shot at recovering it, especially if you didn't do a lot of rewriting on that particular partition.

New to Version 2:-Region names - Some of these will be changed soon, likely in the next version. I will also be changing some of the region borders. I will be striving to make the regions as accurate as possible. Expect this in the next update. -Mini map added to legend - The bonus values on the mini map are tentative. Once I get impassables on the map, I can figure out proper bonus values.

To do:Territory namesSea RoutesImpassablesMini MapFill out the legendBetter background for legendFind a better map border than the black lineAdd the cities back in (probably)Probably some more stuff I can't think of right now

Feedback/Discussion wanted: - Still need some discussion on these issues...Does this one look ok so far? Are the colors acceptable? I really liked the previous version better, but not much I can do about it. I can keep tweaking the colors, but they're pretty close to how they were. As long as people don't hate them, then I'll probably leave them be.

I'm going to abandon the victory condition idea. I don't think it really added much to the gameplay. Will anybody really miss it?

I am probably going to keep the cities. They will just function as either autodeploys or a +1 per 1 or 2. Is this something you guys would like to see? Or would you rather just see them scrapped and have this a straight up geographic map?

Instead of having the Black Sea be a killer neutral that assaults and is assaulted by every land region it touches, I think I'm going to have a killer neutral terit on the sea, and have 1 or 2 terits from each bonus region around it connect to it via sea routes. Does this sound like a better route to go, or did you like it better before?

tkr4lf wrote:Feedback/Discussion wanted: - Still need some discussion on these issues...Does this one look ok so far? Are the colors acceptable? I really liked the previous version better, but not much I can do about it. I can keep tweaking the colors, but they're pretty close to how they were. As long as people don't hate them, then I'll probably leave them be.

Colours look OK for now.

I'm going to abandon the victory condition idea. I don't think it really added much to the gameplay. Will anybody really miss it?

Win/lose conditions are fads. If you want one, then find one that fits the map. Like hold all cities.

I am probably going to keep the cities. They will just function as either autodeploys or a +1 per 1 or 2. Is this something you guys would like to see? Or would you rather just see them scrapped and have this a straight up geographic map?

Keep the cities, and a +1 auto is the norm.

Instead of having the Black Sea be a killer neutral that assaults and is assaulted by every land region it touches, I think I'm going to have a killer neutral terit on the sea, and have 1 or 2 terits from each bonus region around it connect to it via sea routes. Does this sound like a better route to go, or did you like it better before?

Black sea killer with a route going north, south, east, west would be good. No need to go overboard with these.

[Moved Back]

Well, with development starting up again on this, lets move it back to the drafting room.

tkr4lf wrote:Feedback/Discussion wanted: - Still need some discussion on these issues...Does this one look ok so far? Are the colors acceptable? I really liked the previous version better, but not much I can do about it. I can keep tweaking the colors, but they're pretty close to how they were. As long as people don't hate them, then I'll probably leave them be.

Colours look OK for now.

I'm going to abandon the victory condition idea. I don't think it really added much to the gameplay. Will anybody really miss it?

Win/lose conditions are fads. If you want one, then find one that fits the map. Like hold all cities.

I am probably going to keep the cities. They will just function as either autodeploys or a +1 per 1 or 2. Is this something you guys would like to see? Or would you rather just see them scrapped and have this a straight up geographic map?

Keep the cities, and a +1 auto is the norm.

Instead of having the Black Sea be a killer neutral that assaults and is assaulted by every land region it touches, I think I'm going to have a killer neutral terit on the sea, and have 1 or 2 terits from each bonus region around it connect to it via sea routes. Does this sound like a better route to go, or did you like it better before?

Black sea killer with a route going north, south, east, west would be good. No need to go overboard with these.

[Moved Back]

Well, with development starting up again on this, lets move it back to the drafting room.

tkr4lf wrote:Feedback/Discussion wanted: - Still need some discussion on these issues...Does this one look ok so far? Are the colors acceptable? I really liked the previous version better, but not much I can do about it. I can keep tweaking the colors, but they're pretty close to how they were. As long as people don't hate them, then I'll probably leave them be.

The graphics have a way to go I think. For some maps, bonus zone colors can work pretty well graphically (Brazil, Central America, Duck and Cover, England, Far East, First Nations, Iceland, North America 2.0, etc), but for others, I don't think it always works as well (San Marino, San Francisco, Greater China, etc). I suppose it kind of depends on what the final over arching goal you have for the visual aesthetic.

I'm going to abandon the victory condition idea. I don't think it really added much to the gameplay. Will anybody really miss it?

I forgot it was even in the earlier drafts.

I am probably going to keep the cities. They will just function as either autodeploys or a +1 per 1 or 2. Is this something you guys would like to see? Or would you rather just see them scrapped and have this a straight up geographic map?

Cities fits I think, so thumbs up to keepin' em. It adds a bit of nuance the map.

Instead of having the Black Sea be a killer neutral that assaults and is assaulted by every land region it touches, I think I'm going to have a killer neutral terit on the sea, and have 1 or 2 terits from each bonus region around it connect to it via sea routes. Does this sound like a better route to go, or did you like it better before?

Is the whole sea 1 region, or would you break it up into something like 3/5 regions? I kind of like the idea of traversing across the water is a quick way to travel on the map, but at the penalty of killer neutrals.